Budget Meeting Minutes 05/11/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

a different way of formatting the CIl' so that the breakdown between the projects that were funded from those that were farther out in the plan and not yet funded. City Manager Taylor suggested that a proposal to redo the CIP in a significant way should be part of the issues discussion that the Budget Committee had in its annual meeting. He added that he wished to know how the committee thought the CIl' should be changed. Ms. Bettman asked if the current CIP was already reformatted from previous versions. Patti Boyle, senior management analyst for the Finance Division of the Central Services Deparirnent (CSD), replied that there were a few formatting changes, one of which was the identification of unfunded projects in a particular year. Staff, at the request of the Budget Committee, had tried to align the CIP with the Multi-Year Financial Plan; therefore, unfunded projects had been included in the CIP in the years they were shown in the Multi-Year Financial Plan. She underscored that this had been done in response to requests for greater specificity for unfunded projects. Ms. Bettman recommended a separation between the funded projects and the unfunded projects in the CIP so that it was very clear that the unfunded portion of it was speculative. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor stated that every year the capital projects were identified by fund for the year. Mr. Carlson added that the City actually budgeted at the fund level and did not formulate line-item budgeting for each project. He said the projects were listed in the budget. Ms. Bettman declared that when the.council adopted the budget the council was adopting a project with the associated funds. She said this brought up the "Chad Drive extension project" issue, in which the funding source had changed after the City Council had approved it. She wished to know why the Monroe/FriendlyBikeway prof ect had been removed from. the CIP because, though it was funded through Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) money, it was not yet built. She did not understand why it "disappeared" from the CIP. She thought this to be inconsistent from previous practices. She asked-how she could make a motion to delete the project. Mr. Schoening explained that once the money had been incorporated into the budget for FY05 the project would not be on the CIP for FY06. He underscored that the CIP that was before the Budget Committee .encompassed FY06 through FYl l . Ms. Bettman expressed confusion as the money had not yet been spent. Mr. Schoening said this was true of many projects. He fiuher clarified thatthe money was specific to a certain year and the money stayed with the project until it was completed. He reiterated that the plan that looked forward from the next fiscal year and the five following years was asix-year planning document that did not look back at projects that already had funding appropriated to them, other than to list those that had been funded but not yet constructed. As an example, he indicated that the bottom half of the page of transportation projects contained the projects that were previously funded but not yet constructed, adding that this was purely for informational purposes. Mr. Kelly asked if the City Council or Budget Committee wished to defend an already funded project whether it would be undertaken by a stand-alone motion to direct the City Manager to cease further efforts on a given project or if it would be in the context of a supplemental budget to remove the funding from one fund and place it elsewhere. Mr. Schoening replied that either course would execute such an action, though the first would be the most likely scenario in which such action would be taken. Mr. Pape credited staff for the work done at the behest of the council to develop a facilities plan and find finnding for it. He said the council and the Budget Committee had not been as successful at finding MINUTES-Eugene Budget Committee ~ February 22, 2005 Page 5